A response to the argument in lordmagnuskain's sig

[Kaiynne]

How many people have had better lives thinking there is no god?

How many people have had better lives because of the salvation of God?

The existence of God and Salvation doesn't prove logically correct or incorrect; but it does prove good and Positive:

So, would you rather be logically unsure, or spiritually good?

You need to take an intro to logic class my friend, because this is such a poor poor attempt at an argument. This attempt at an argument in favor of the existence of god was dealt with like 200 years ago, your inarticulate version wherever you got it from is just a variation on Pascal's Wager. The problem with this argument is that belief is not a voluntary effort of will, you cannot believe something because of any imagined benefit you might see in so doing. For example if i held a gun to your head, and said 1+1=3 you have to believe it or i will shoot you, no matter how many times you tell me that you do believe it you know that you could not actually believe that to be true. The same would be true if i offered you a million dollars if you believed 1+1=3. You have to believe things based on evidence not because of some outside pressure. Therefore, it follows that if i do not see sufficient evidence to sway me to believe in god it doesn't matter whether my life would be better because of "salvation" or whatever imaginary concepts you want to invent. So to answer your final question, you don't have to be logically unsure you just believe that to which there is the greatest weight of evidence, not which outcome offers you the most "spiritual goodness" If it so happens that the evidence leads me towards the belief with the outcome of "spiritual goodness" as you put it, then that is nothing more than a coincidence and of no import.


I hope that clears the matter up and would appreciate if would try to find a better argument for the existance of god to put in your sig in the future.

Thanks,
Kain

 

[conjur]

But that would require thinking on the part of LMK.

Hence, this thread is moot.

 

[nutxo]

I think maybe you should have Pmed him with this. This isnt genmay. I'm not sure how people look at callout threads here.

 

[fjord]

Yes.

Nevertheless it should be clear to all that there is no need to believe in God AND be spiritually good. These are not an obligate pair.

Just as you can quite easily believe in God and do great harm--spiritual and otherwise.

Much of our history (including recent) is peppered with examples of the second case.

 

[chess9]

I never read callout threads, or seminar threads.

This guy Kaiynne needs to leave before we pollute his mind with so much trash he won't be able to find his keys or remember his name. j/k

-Robert

 

[DealMonkey]

Religious people aren't necessarily logical. You should know that already Kaiynne.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: fjord
Yes.

Nevertheless it should be clear to all that there is no need to believe in God AND be spiritually good. These are not an obligate pair.

Just as you can quite easily believe in God and do great harm--spiritual and otherwise.

Much of our history (including recent) is peppered with examples of the second case.

LOl

That goes both ways, I think there have been more people that have died by the hands of people intending to wipe out religions and religious peoples though.

 

[chess9]

Nutxo:

Uh, that would be a difficult premise to support. If I were a betting man I'd put big money on the opposite being true.

-Robert

 

[Moonbeam]

Well I noticed the nonsense there too, though it has a certain appeal. But he was spouting so much other nonsense at the time that I didn't want to add to the bother. And while I wouldn't say that faith is like mathematics, where you can't believe in a wrong sum under pressure, I do believe that faith can't be forces or is useless if it's just based on self preservation. The best proof of the existence of God that I can see is the longing we feel inside or the sense that something is incomplete. It comes, I think from another dimension, where man and God are at one.

Maybe some faith brings peace and comfort, but maybe faith of another type brings transformation.

 

[chess9]

Moonbeam:

My faith comes from the certain knowledge that Bush will be re-elected and we will have 4 more years to kick him around and pound him into hamburger meat.

:wine::music:

-Robert

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Kaiynne

You need to take an intro to logic class my friend, because this is such a poor poor attempt at an argument. This attempt at an argument in favor of the existence of god was dealt with like 200 years ago, your inarticulate version wherever you got it from is just a variation on Pascal's Wager. The problem with this argument is that belief is not a voluntary effort of will, you cannot believe something because of any imagined benefit you might see in so doing.

does that include what you just said? it would pretty much have to would it not? your logic is terribly flawed and is in fact self destructive, your refuting yourself, and your example does not support your assertion it as it speaks of a choice made underduress(not a choice of free will), not preference.(a choice made from free will.) there is a big difference between the two.

Originally posted by: Kaiynne
For example if i held a gun to your head, and said 1+1=3 you have to believe it or i will shoot you, no matter how many times you tell me that you do believe it you know that you could not actually believe that to be true. The same would be true if i offered you a million dollars if you believed 1+1=3. You have to believe things based on evidence not because of some outside pressure. Therefore, it follows that if i do not see sufficient evidence to sway me to believe in god it doesn't matter whether my life would be better because of "salvation" or whatever imaginary concepts you want to invent. So to answer your final question, you don't have to be logically unsure you just believe that to which there is the greatest weight of evidence, not which outcome offers you the most "spiritual goodness" If it so happens that the evidence leads me towards the belief with the outcome of "spiritual goodness" as you put it, then that is nothing more than a coincidence and of no import.


I hope that clears the matter up and would appreciate if would try to find a better argument for the existance of god to put in your sig in the future.

Thanks,
Kain

as far as pascals wager is concerned, making a choice with recognition that choices have consequences(something demonstrated daily in objective reality) is a perfectly logical thing to do, just as making a choice not to leave your finger in a burning flame(bad) and not doing so(good) is generally determined by the preference of most people not to be burned. conversely a masochist would choose to be burned by the flame but his motivation would still be choosing what he considers "good"(feeling the pain of the burn) over what he considers "bad"(missing the opportunity to feel the sensation of pain)

in either case that which is "good"(positive) is chosen over that which is bad(negative) due to personal preference, even though the masochist and non-masochist are diametrically opposed in what they consider "good" and "bad"

 

[CADsortaGUY]

"I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me." John 14:6

Lord have mercy on us, for we are all sinners.

CkG

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: Kaiynne

You need to take an intro to logic class my friend, because this is such a poor poor attempt at an argument. This attempt at an argument in favor of the existence of god was dealt with like 200 years ago, your inarticulate version wherever you got it from is just a variation on Pascal's Wager. The problem with this argument is that belief is not a voluntary effort of will, you cannot believe something because of any imagined benefit you might see in so doing.

does that include what you just said? it would pretty much have to would it not? your logic is terribly flawed and is in fact self destructive, your refuting yourself, and your example does not support your assertion it as it speaks of a choice made underduress(not a choice of free will), not preference.(a choice made from free will.) there is a big difference between the two.

Originally posted by: Kaiynne
For example if i held a gun to your head, and said 1+1=3 you have to believe it or i will shoot you, no matter how many times you tell me that you do believe it you know that you could not actually believe that to be true. The same would be true if i offered you a million dollars if you believed 1+1=3. You have to believe things based on evidence not because of some outside pressure. Therefore, it follows that if i do not see sufficient evidence to sway me to believe in god it doesn't matter whether my life would be better because of "salvation" or whatever imaginary concepts you want to invent. So to answer your final question, you don't have to be logically unsure you just believe that to which there is the greatest weight of evidence, not which outcome offers you the most "spiritual goodness" If it so happens that the evidence leads me towards the belief with the outcome of "spiritual goodness" as you put it, then that is nothing more than a coincidence and of no import.


I hope that clears the matter up and would appreciate if would try to find a better argument for the existance of god to put in your sig in the future.

Thanks,
Kain

as far as pascals wager is concerned, making a choice with recognition that choices have consequences(something demonstrated daily in objective reality) is a perfectly logical thing to do, just as making a choice not to leave your finger in a burning flame(bad) and not doing so(good) is generally determined by the preference of most people not to be burned. conversely a masochist would choose to be burned by the flame but his motivation would still be choosing what he considers "good"(feeling the pain of the burn) over what he considers "bad"(missing the opportunity to feel the sensation of pain)

in either case that which is "good"(positive) is chosen over that which is bad(negative) due to personal preference, even though the masochist and non-masochist are diametrically opposed in what they consider "good" and "bad"

I'll somewhat agree, but the problem with Pascal's Wager is basically this: You can't believe in God, in an attempt to hedge your bet just in case there is a God. You either believe or you don't. If there is a God he/she/it will see right through you and reject you as a Fake.

OTOH, if the purpose of "Believing in God" is merely to accept a particular Path, Moral Regimen, Social Rules of Interaction, etc, then the existance of God is moot and one can Hedge their Bets without need of True Belief. Since there would be no God to truly judge one's heart, to see beyond the Mental Gymnastics or Calculated Risks.

 

[DealMonkey]

So is someone gonna pitch a big tent so we can start healing people, or what?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So is someone gonna pitch a big tent so we can start healing people, or what?

Why? Is Jennifer Garner making an appearance?:Q I don't know how that would heal people though....

CkG

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So is someone gonna pitch a big tent so we can start healing people, or what?

:beer:

 

[Sahakiel]

Originally posted by: Kaiynne
How many people have had better lives thinking there is no god?

How many people have had better lives because of the salvation of God?

The existence of God and Salvation doesn't prove logically correct or incorrect; but it does prove good and Positive:

So, would you rather be logically unsure, or spiritually good?

If this argument is an attempt to prove the existence of God, then it is a familiar example of begging the question. The second line assumes the existence of God and His Will is the direct cause of said people having better lives.

If, on the otherhand it's an argument for faith in God vs lack of faith in God, then its justification is flawed. The argument relies on the possibilities that people who believe in God live better lives than people who do not believe He exists or vice versa. However, there are, as far as I know, no person at any point in history who has lived his life twice. In fact, I do think that would be counter to the Christian belief system. However, in order to justify the assumption, one would have to live the same life twice, once as a Christian and once as an atheist, in order to observe as to which life is better than the other.

 

[happyhelper]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The best proof of the existence of God that I can see is the longing we feel inside or the sense that something is incomplete. It comes, I think from another dimension, where man and God are at one.

absolute idiocy

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: happyhelper

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The best proof of the existence of God that I can see is the longing we feel inside or the sense that something is incomplete. It comes, I think from another dimension, where man and God are at one.

absolute idiocy

Thank you. That is very encouraging coming from the clown act that posted this:

"Music companies today know that there is money to be made by using tried and true business/marketing principles to make huge sums of cash off of musicians that they can create an appeal for - to sell music to the kids. Similar people 2,000 years ago knew how to make huge sums of cash off of magicians and mystics and story-tellers of all types... and that's what they did with Jesus. He was a 'sell-out" in the same fashion as Britney Spears or the majority of pop-rock bands. He didn't have a new message, he just had a new way of telling people what they wanted to "hear", and was aided by those who were well-learned in knowing what the people wanted to "hear". After his death, those well-learned people inherited his unique self-expression and tweaked it and honed it down for 2,000+ years to keep pumping money from it. It's really all so simple, if you think about it."

Simple is as simple does, I guess. More likely that that piece of diarrhea is that Jesus is the only son of God.

 

[0roo0roo]

pascals wager = every intro to philosophy/crit think class

sad...

 

[Bitek]

However, there are, as far as I know, no person at any point in history who has lived his life twice. In fact, I do think that would be counter to the Christian belief system.

You're forgetting about the Eastern Reincarnation religons. Millions have (re)lived non-xian believing lives and have recieved spiritual promotions by the Divine.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: sandorski
I'll somewhat agree, but the problem with Pascal's Wager is basically this: You can't believe in God, in an attempt to hedge your bet just in case there is a God. You either believe or you don't. If there is a God he/she/it will see right through you and reject you as a Fake.[q/]

maybe. but accepting the possibility there is a god leaves the mind open to evidence(or to an interpretation of existing evidence) that god exists. pascal's wager alone is not reason enough to believe in God but is was never really intended to be.

Originally posted by: sandorski
OTOH, if the purpose of "Believing in God" is merely to accept a particular Path, Moral Regimen, Social Rules of Interaction, etc, then the existance of God is moot and one can Hedge their Bets without need of True Belief. Since there would be no God to truly judge one's heart, to see beyond the Mental Gymnastics or Calculated Risks.

that same logic also applies to disbelieving in God when you really think about it.

as far as calculated risks go, we take them multiple times everyday. the mere act of going to work is a calculated risk. and when presented with options the survival instinct usually prompts the person to make the less risky choice, which is the very point pascal's wager makes. if God created man with all the tools he needed for survival, one of the most effective would be the survival instinct itself. i do not think God would hold it against man if that survival instinct as part of reasoning to seek Him out.

 

[happyhelper]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: happyhelper

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The best proof of the existence of God that I can see is the longing we feel inside or the sense that something is incomplete. It comes, I think from another dimension, where man and God are at one.

absolute idiocy

Thank you. That is very encouraging coming from the clown act that posted this:

"Music companies today know that there is money to be made by using tried and true business/marketing principles to make huge sums of cash off of musicians that they can create an appeal for - to sell music to the kids. Similar people 2,000 years ago knew how to make huge sums of cash off of magicians and mystics and story-tellers of all types... and that's what they did with Jesus. He was a 'sell-out" in the same fashion as Britney Spears or the majority of pop-rock bands. He didn't have a new message, he just had a new way of telling people what they wanted to "hear", and was aided by those who were well-learned in knowing what the people wanted to "hear". After his death, those well-learned people inherited his unique self-expression and tweaked it and honed it down for 2,000+ years to keep pumping money from it. It's really all so simple, if you think about it."

Simple is as simple does, I guess. More likely that that piece of diarrhea is that Jesus is the only son of God.

Aw, I am glad you read my post and I am glad you replied and revealed yourself to be too stupid to understand "simple" explanations of reality. You are the perfect symbol of ignorance... it was ignorant minds like yours that said "I live here on Earth, so Earth is the center around which the universe revolves" without doing any investigation to see if that statement was true. It was an ignorant mind like yours that without any evidence to support his view said, "I don't want to be mortal, so I must have an aspect of myself that is not mortal. I just must!" It was ignorant mind like yours that came up with this: "I have no idea why I exist or how I exist, so that means there is a God!" It's an ignorant and unthinking mind like yours that could say, "hmmm, this guy gives a pretty good psychological explanation of how human beings work today (with a strong motivation for money and a , how they have worked throughout their history and how they enshrined a rather unique individual to the point (to Godliness - the penultimate potentate next to the unseeable, unknowable [and unreal] God himself) that he no longer resembles what he actually was (a unique man who could effectively communicate ideas that his audience craved) in any way, shape or form. That's just diarrhea, because God has a son and his name is Jesus because I say so and the bible says so, too."

Your ignorant idiot like yourself that you rose to the defense of made his own completely irrational leap of logic saying "I have a longing feeling, and that's the best proof of God."

Cheese tastes good, so the moon is made of cheese.
In France the people speak French, so they are evil.
Potato chips come in bags, so Pringles aren't potato chips.
I exist, therefore there is a God.
I exist, therefore I can not cease to exist.
Things exist for which I have no explanation, so I'll just make things up to explain it.

All these are the type of things you and your ignorant band of fairy-tale believers say all the time. You have no basis for your statements, they are just arbitrary whims that either you made up or someone else made up and you adopted. I, on the other hand, gave a perfectly reasoned explanation of how stardom (or fame) comes about, about how fame or desire for fame twists a person so that he can appeal to the highest number possible and how the average person's volitional gullibility will be taken in by the famed person. And I pointed out how one's fame and following are exploited long after one ceases to exist himself. In your mind... irrational, ridiculous, moronic = good... rational = diarhea.


As for his silly sig, I posted a response earlier in his humongo thread. I guess you did not notice it because you were too busy saying "I disagree with this guy, so his words are diarhea" (yet another indescribable leap of logic).
.As for silly [sig] questions:

How many people have had better lives thinking there is no god?[/]

All who thought that.

How many people have had better lives because of the salvation of God?

Probably none, since there is no salvation of God. Maybe some had better lives because of a belief in the salvation of God, but honestly it seems very improbably that any have benefitted from such a belief, and it's obvious that humanity as a whole has not benefitted from the existence of hordes of "believers".

The existence of God and Salvation doesn't prove logically correct or incorrect; but it does prove good and Positive:

The existence of God proves logically incorrect. Check your premises. The existence of Salvation also proves logically incorrect. And neither the belief of God or the belief of Salvation, that is in both cases the belief of the logically impossible and incorrect, proves "good" or "positive."

So, would you rather be logically unsure, or spiritually good?

Even if your preceding sentences were not flawed (which they are), this statement would not logically follow them. Acceptance of logical unsurety does not prove or disprove goodness. But as you (erroneously) pointed out, one can not prove that god exists or not by logic... thus, your statement gives no choice
"would you rather be logically unsure"
according to your precediing sentence, one has no choice in that matter
your sentence is a veiled deception, the only honest question that could be asked after the preceding one is
"would you rather be spiritually bad, or spiritually good"
and again, the word "spiritually" (as pertaining to the word "soul" - the imaginary construct which is independent of a creature's physical existence) is imaginary (non-existent in reality) and thus can have no adjective (good or bad) attached to it with any meaning whatsoever.

If you were an honest man, you would say, "I pretend to myself that there is a God, and I pretend that I am evil (along with everyone else), and I pretend that I have a part of me that will never cease to exist, and I pretend that when my physical body dies, that pretend part of me which is called my "soul" will go to a place that I pretend exists called "heaven", because I pretend that there is this wonderful thing called 'salvation" which allows my pretend soul to go to pretend heaven instead of a really bad place I pretend exists called hell. Now, since I have told you about myself, would you like to pretend all these things, with me, as I do, and have my acceptance and approval, or would you rather not pretend these things and be despised, judged unfavorably and ridiculed by me and my large gang of fellow pretenders? If you accept my view, and will pretend with me, I will teach you about all the things that we (my big gang of pretenders) pretend are bad, and what we pretend is good, and if you don't accept, well you'll find out anyway, because we have a really big gang, and we're rather vocal about what we pretend is good and what we pretend is bad and it's best just to get in with us as soon as you can and save yourself the pain of being judged, hated and ridiculed by us. Not to mention saving yourself from the pretend agony of pretend eternal damnation in the fiery pretend place called hell."

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: happyhelper

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: happyhelper

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The best proof of the existence of God that I can see is the longing we feel inside or the sense that something is incomplete. It comes, I think from another dimension, where man and God are at one.

absolute idiocy

Thank you. That is very encouraging coming from the clown act that posted this:

"Music companies today know that there is money to be made by using tried and true business/marketing principles to make huge sums of cash off of musicians that they can create an appeal for - to sell music to the kids. Similar people 2,000 years ago knew how to make huge sums of cash off of magicians and mystics and story-tellers of all types... and that's what they did with Jesus. He was a 'sell-out" in the same fashion as Britney Spears or the majority of pop-rock bands. He didn't have a new message, he just had a new way of telling people what they wanted to "hear", and was aided by those who were well-learned in knowing what the people wanted to "hear". After his death, those well-learned people inherited his unique self-expression and tweaked it and honed it down for 2,000+ years to keep pumping money from it. It's really all so simple, if you think about it."

Simple is as simple does, I guess. More likely that that piece of diarrhea is that Jesus is the only son of God.

Aw, I am glad you read my post and I am glad you replied and revealed yourself to be too stupid to understand "simple" explanations of reality. You are the perfect symbol of ignorance... it was ignorant minds like yours that said "I live here on Earth, so Earth is the center around which the universe revolves" without doing any investigation to see if that statement was true. It was an ignorant mind like yours that without any evidence to support his view said, "I don't want to be mortal, so I must have an aspect of myself that is not mortal. I just must!" It was ignorant mind like yours that came up with this: "I have no idea why I exist or how I exist, so that means there is a God!" It's an ignorant and unthinking mind like yours that could say, "hmmm, this guy gives a pretty good psychological explanation of how human beings work today (with a strong motivation for money and a , how they have worked throughout their history and how they enshrined a rather unique individual to the point (to Godliness - the penultimate potentate next to the unseeable, unknowable [and unreal] God himself) that he no longer resembles what he actually was (a unique man who could effectively communicate ideas that his audience craved) in any way, shape or form. That's just diarrhea, because God has a son and his name is Jesus because I say so and the bible says so, too."

Your ignorant idiot like yourself that you rose to the defense of made his own completely irrational leap of logic saying "I have a longing feeling, and that's the best proof of God."

Cheese tastes good, so the moon is made of cheese.
In France the people speak French, so they are evil.
Potato chips come in bags, so Pringles aren't potato chips.
I exist, therefore there is a God.
I exist, therefore I can not cease to exist.
Things exist for which I have no explanation, so I'll just make things up to explain it.

All these are the type of things you and your ignorant band of fairy-tale believers say all the time. You have no basis for your statements, they are just arbitrary whims that either you made up or someone else made up and you adopted. I, on the other hand, gave a perfectly reasoned explanation of how stardom (or fame) comes about, about how fame or desire for fame twists a person so that he can appeal to the highest number possible and how the average person's volitional gullibility will be taken in by the famed person. And I pointed out how one's fame and following are exploited long after one ceases to exist himself. In your mind... irrational, ridiculous, moronic = good... rational = diarhea.


As for his silly sig, I posted a response earlier in his humongo thread. I guess you did not notice it because you were too busy saying "I disagree with this guy, so his words are diarhea" (yet another indescribable leap of logic).
.As for silly [sig] questions:

How many people have had better lives thinking there is no god?[/]

All who thought that.

How many people have had better lives because of the salvation of God?

Probably none, since there is no salvation of God. Maybe some had better lives because of a belief in the salvation of God, but honestly it seems very improbably that any have benefitted from such a belief, and it's obvious that humanity as a whole has not benefitted from the existence of hordes of "believers".

The existence of God and Salvation doesn't prove logically correct or incorrect; but it does prove good and Positive:

The existence of God proves logically incorrect. Check your premises. The existence of Salvation also proves logically incorrect. And neither the belief of God or the belief of Salvation, that is in both cases the belief of the logically impossible and incorrect, proves "good" or "positive."

So, would you rather be logically unsure, or spiritually good?

Even if your preceding sentences were not flawed (which they are), this statement would not logically follow them. Acceptance of logical unsurety does not prove or disprove goodness. But as you (erroneously) pointed out, one can not prove that god exists or not by logic... thus, your statement gives no choice
"would you rather be logically unsure"
according to your precediing sentence, one has no choice in that matter
your sentence is a veiled deception, the only honest question that could be asked after the preceding one is
"would you rather be spiritually bad, or spiritually good"
and again, the word "spiritually" (as pertaining to the word "soul" - the imaginary construct which is independent of a creature's physical existence) is imaginary (non-existent in reality) and thus can have no adjective (good or bad) attached to it with any meaning whatsoever.

If you were an honest man, you would say, "I pretend to myself that there is a God, and I pretend that I am evil (along with everyone else), and I pretend that I have a part of me that will never cease to exist, and I pretend that when my physical body dies, that pretend part of me which is called my "soul" will go to a place that I pretend exists called "heaven", because I pretend that there is this wonderful thing called 'salvation" which allows my pretend soul to go to pretend heaven instead of a really bad place I pretend exists called hell. Now, since I have told you about myself, would you like to pretend all these things, with me, as I do, and have my acceptance and approval, or would you rather not pretend these things and be despised, judged unfavorably and ridiculed by me and my large gang of fellow pretenders? If you accept my view, and will pretend with me, I will teach you about all the things that we (my big gang of pretenders) pretend are bad, and what we pretend is good, and if you don't accept, well you'll find out anyway, because we have a really big gang, and we're rather vocal about what we pretend is good and what we pretend is bad and it's best just to get in with us as soon as you can and save yourself the pain of being judged, hated and ridiculed by us. Not to mention saving yourself from the pretend agony of pretend eternal damnation in the fiery pretend place called hell."

absolute idiocy

 

[Moonbeam]

Earlier I said,

"The best proof of the existence of God that I can see is the longing we feel inside or the sense that something is incomplete. It comes, I think from another dimension, where man and God are at one. It comes, I think from another dimension, where man and God are at one."

It would have been closer to my intention, I think, had I said:

"The best evidence for the existence of God that I can see is the longing we feel inside or the sense that something is incomplete. It comes, I think from another dimension, where man and God are at one.